A study about to be published in this week's British Medical Journal indicates that second-hand smoke doesn't increase the risk of heart disease or lung cancer, but the publication and the study's authors have come under attack by anti-smoking groups.
Two American researchers analyzed data from an American Cancer Society survey that followed more than 118,000 Californians from 1960 until 1998.
James E. Enstrom, of the University of California at Los Angeles and Geoffrey C. Kabat of the State University of New York at Stony Brook concluded that "the results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke (second-hand smoke) and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect."
"The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed," the researchers wrote.
The study was roundly condemned by anti-smoking groups including the American Cancer Society and even by the British Medical Journal's parent organization, the British Medical Association. They said the researchers received money from the tobacco industry, a statement that was confirmed by the journal Friday.
The American Cancer Society (ACS) pointed out what it called several flaws in the research. The researchers based their study on a small subset of the original data, the ACS said, and because of the greater prevalence of smokers in the 60s and 70s, "virtually everyone was exposed to environmental tobacco smoke."
Smoking opponents also pointed out in the original study, although the health of the subjects were monitored until 1998, no information on smoking habits was collected after 1972.
"We are appalled that the tobacco industry has succeeded in giving visibility to a study with so many problems," Michael J. Thun, ACS national vice president of epidemiology and surveillance research, said in a statement.
"The American Cancer Society welcomes thoughtful, independent peer review of our data. But this study is neither reliable nor independent," Thun said.
Other studies have indicated that inhaling second-hand smoke on a regular basis increases the risk of heart disease by about 30 percent. But as the researchers pointed out in their BMJ article, exposure to second-hand smoke is difficult to measure and such studies necessarily rely on self-reported data that may or may not be accurate.
Figures are skewed, researchers said, by former smokers who are wrongly classified.
"The relation between tobacco-related diseases and environmental tobacco smoke may be influenced by misclassification of some smokers as never smokers," the researchers wrote.
However, several British groups agreed with the ACS assessment of the study. The British Medical Association said that 1,000 people die every year in the U.K. as a result of passive smoking.
"There is overwhelming evidence, built up over decades, that passive smoking causes lung cancer and heart disease, as well as triggering asthma attacks," said Vivienne Nathanson, BMA's head of science and ethics. "In children, passive smoking increases the risk of pneumonia, bronchitis, and reduces lung growth, as well as both causing and worsening asthma."
A spokesman for Action on Smoking and Health said: "We are utterly surprised as to why the BMJ has published this. It's nothing but a lobbying tool."
"This is just one study," the spokesman said. "It will do nothing to change the massive body of evidence that has built up over the years."
The journal stood by its decision to publish research but editors turned down interview requests Friday. A spokeswoman said decisions on publication were made only after "careful consideration and peer review."
The study, which was available online and will be published in the BMJ on Saturday, was partially funded by money from the tobacco industry, the spokeswoman said, but could not provide further details.
Groups campaigning against further tobacco regulations in Britain welcomed the research. Smokers' lobby group FOREST said the "jury is still out" on the effects of second-hand smoke.
"This is typical of the anti-smoking lobby's bullying tactics," said FOREST director Simon Clark. "They attack not just the authors but the messenger ... the BMJ is one of the most respected journals in the world."
Attacks on the study in the U.K. have been led by proponents of a total ban on smoking in public places like pubs, clubs and restaurants, a position that Clark said was undermined by the study.
"People who want to ban smoking in public places use passive smoking as their number one argument," he said. "That's why this study is so significant."
She was also a smoker and only quit when she was 117 years old. [1] Her fondness for sweets, like chocolate, also continued until the age of 119. She was the last recognized surviving person of the 1870s.
His wife died at the age of 90. He drank shōchū (a Japanese alcoholic beverage distilled from barley), and took up smoking at age 70.
Very interesting. I have heard that they plan to ban smoking in public ANYWHERE (California) recently. It is totally not going to pass but wtf? They also tried to raise the tax on tobacco products by like 30%~ or so last election/season.
What would be the reasoning for all this anti-smoking stuff if it wasn't all true?
Biography Born in Arles, France, to a well-to-do family, her close family members also lived to an advanced age: her brother, François, lived to the age of 97, her father, Nicolas, 93, and her mother, Marguerite, 86. In 1896, she married her second cousin (grandson of her great-uncle) Fernand Calment, a wealthy storeowner. His wealth made it possible for Calment never to have to work: instead she led a relaxed lifestyle, pursuing hobbies like tennis, cycling, swimming, rollerskating, piano, and opera. Her husband died in 1942, after he ate a dessert prepared with spoiled cherries. Calment's longevity was not shared by her offspring. Her only daughter, Yvonne, died at age 36 in 1934 from pneumonia. As a result, the task of bringing up her grandson Frédéric fell on her shoulders. He became a doctor, but died in 1963 in a motorcycle accident. In 1965, aged 90, with no living heirs, Jeanne Calment signed a deal, common in France, to sell her condominium apartment en viager to lawyer François Raffray. Raffray, then aged 47, agreed to pay a monthly sum until she died, an agreement sometimes called a "reverse mortgage". At the time of the deal the value of the apartment was equal to ten years of payments. Unfortunately for Raffray, not only did Calment survive for more than thirty more years, but Raffray died of cancer in December 1995, at the age of 77, leaving his widow to continue the payments for two years.
This chick is the devil and she happens to be the oldest person ever. !_! I hate old people.
you get used to the stink like any other smell (i worked in the family coffee shop that sold cigarettes when I was in highdchool.) people are so sensitive and allergic to everything now-days because we live in such an antiseptic environment. Some of my friends in college where pretty heavy smokers -- though they've since mostly quit. Nice and very hardworking guys.
What if they cure cancer? They are getting closer and doing better every year. Will the war on tobacco and smokers continue? most likely
ETA I've never smoked, but I support the right to smoke without feeling threatened or ashamed of doing so. Education is fine. Banning ads and vending machines, ok, banning it in all public indoors, ummm... ok. I think things have gone far enough.
On October 06 2007 15:15 NoName wrote: you get used to the stink like any other smell (i worked in the family coffee shop that sold cigarettes when I was in highdchool.) people are so sensitive and allergic to everything now-days because we live in such an antiseptic environment. Some of my friends in college where pretty heavy smokers -- though they've since mostly quit. Nice and very hardworking guys.
What if they cure cancer? They are getting closer and doing better every year. Will the war on tobacco and smokers continue? most likely
By Nic Fleming Science Correspondent Last Updated: 3:56am BST 21/09/2007
Cancer sufferers could be cured with injections of immune cells from other people within two years, scientists say.
US researchers have been given the go-ahead to give patients transfusions of “super strength” cancer-killing cells from donors.
How the treatment might work
Dr Zheng Cui, of the Wake Forest University School of Medicine, has shown in laboratory experiments that immune cells from some people can be almost 50 times more effective in fighting cancer than in others.
Yay there is a conspiracy! Yay! You discovered it, well wait. You managed to discovered the most non-secret health project for the humanity by yourself, you are a good boy, Charly!
It's all lead by the evil guys working in the U.N. but it seems to be working like Al Quaeda, they have non connected actors that will act in the name of the U.N. so actually its a terrorist conspiracy
On October 06 2007 15:15 NoName wrote: ok, banning it in all public indoors, ummm... ok. I think things have gone far enough.
uh why not? why should people have to put up with the smoke and potential health risks because of other peoples dirty habit?
because that's life. some people don't wash after wiping. some on public transportation or go to class or work sick with flu. we eat processed food is made with all sorts of artificial chemicals.
A little smoke in an outdoor space is nothing. I smelled far worse from trucks, BBQs, paint thinner, my sharpie.
On October 06 2007 15:40 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: Considering the fat tax money the government makes from cigarette sales I really doubt they're plotting the industry's demise
Many activist groups blow things out of proportion because they feel they're doing right by the world.
Well smoking generates illness which the goverment pays in one way or another (depending on the country and their policies of course).
On October 06 2007 15:15 NoName wrote: ok, banning it in all public indoors, ummm... ok. I think things have gone far enough.
uh why not? why should people have to put up with the smoke and potential health risks because of other peoples dirty habit?
because that's life. some people don't wash after wiping. some on public transportation or go to class or work sick with flu. we eat processed food is made with all sorts of artificial chemicals.
A little smoke in an outdoor space is nothing. I smelled far worse from trucks, BBQs, paint thinner, my sharpie.
the fact that life will never be perfect doesnt mean we should shouldnt try to improve it. its quite easy to ban smoking in public, and make life a little bit better for everyone(except the smoker). its not so easy to fix the other stuff you mentioned.
What's the reasoning behind the government forcing restaurant and bar owners to not allow smoking in their property? I haven't heard it yet.
Because some people are fascist control-freaks who want to control other people's lives, even if they need to violate those people's property rights and restrict their freedoms in doing so. Why ban trans fats? Those arguably only hurt the person who is eating them, yet occasionally you hear of politicians attempting to ban these (I think some may actually have succeeded in certain localities or cities, though I'm not sure).
This reminds me of people who push for gun bans. A handful of people have an attitude like: "I can't see why anyone needs to own this or that, so lets ban it." Some people don't seem to understand that some people might have wants or desires that differ from what they consider normal or acceptable, so for some reason they seek to control these people and discourage them from engaging in such activities. Another example of this is laws against gay sex. For real, who cares, provided it is consensual? I certainly don't.
EDIT: Something I'd like to add, this type of behavior seems natural to some extent. I remember when I was going to school how occasionally groups of kids would tease, pick on, or in general just make life miserable for some kids, more or less just because they are different in some ways from other people. Some people are just intolerant it seems.
On October 06 2007 15:15 NoName wrote: you get used to the stink like any other smell (i worked in the family coffee shop that sold cigarettes when I was in highdchool.) people are so sensitive and allergic to everything now-days because we live in such an antiseptic environment. Some of my friends in college where pretty heavy smokers -- though they've since mostly quit. Nice and very hardworking guys.
What if they cure cancer? They are getting closer and doing better every year. Will the war on tobacco and smokers continue? most likely
ETA I've never smoked, but I support the right to smoke without feeling threatened or ashamed of doing so. Education is fine. Banning ads and vending machines, ok, banning it in all public indoors, ummm... ok. I think things have gone far enough.
If you knew how cancer worked you'd understand that we are not even close to finding a "cure for cancer". Smoking is also one of the biggest (if not the biggest) risk factor for different kinds of disease, many of them systemic. It just sucks and then it fucks up the enviroment for everyone around the smoker because if you don't smooke yourself the smell is nasty.
Almost no one at my school smokes (like only a handfull among hundreds of people) because most people quit once they get to know what it does too you.
on the laws against gay sex, you're right but smoking in public and gun contro,l no. smoking in public and owning guns affects other people, meaning its a judgement call as to whether or not my right to not breath in smoke is more important than your right to get cancer. gun control is similar, availability of guns is a risk to society, however since guns are already out there you can make the argument that theyre needed for self defense from... the other people who have guns. again a judgement call. its not just the 'fascist control-freaks' waving their dicks around.
I support other people's right to negatively affect my health. Who am I to tell them what they should and should not do when it only affects themselves and everyone around them at the time?
I'm thinking of picking up a new hobby. It'll have something to do with rusty nails and scratching strangers in public places, but I haven't got the details down yet. Anyway, kudos to smokers for sharing, very magnanimous of them.
If the feds/military ever kicked my door down like they did in New Orleans to seize mine and my family's gun they wouldn't be walking out too easily if at all >/ I really don't see how smoking can be GOOD for you though, even if the risks are less than reported, that doesn't mean its like breathing in heaven in the form of a stick.
On October 06 2007 15:15 NoName wrote: ok, banning it in all public indoors, ummm... ok. I think things have gone far enough.
uh why not? why should people have to put up with the smoke and potential health risks because of other peoples dirty habit?
because that's life. some people don't wash after wiping. some on public transportation or go to class or work sick with flu. we eat processed food is made with all sorts of artificial chemicals.
A little smoke in an outdoor space is nothing. I smelled far worse from trucks, BBQs, paint thinner, my sharpie.
you know, people are trying to do something about the things you mentioned. They try to alert people to wash their hands with signs, they encourage people that are sick to stay at home, they are cracking down on fast food chains to provide healthier foods.
Is it working? Maybe not. But to shrug and say its life and no one can do anything about it is incorrect. Like Idra said, there just isn't an easy solution atm.
Afaik, the reason why they banned smoking in clubs and restaraunts is because the waitresses complained about the second hand smoke and them smelling like smoke etc from being there all day.
OT- Trans fats are worthless aren't they? Not only are guns good to protect you from criminal/malicious people with guns, but the government when they overstep their bounds and your rights.
On October 06 2007 19:58 CharlieMurphy wrote: Afaik, the reason why they banned smoking in clubs and restaraunts is because the waitresses complained about the second hand smoke and them smelling like smoke etc from being there all day.
OT- Trans fats are worthless aren't they? Not only are guns good to protect you from criminal/malicious people with guns, but the government when they overstep their bounds and your rights.
It's their choice/problem if they work in a restaurant that allows smoking, isn't it?
On October 06 2007 19:58 CharlieMurphy wrote: Afaik, the reason why they banned smoking in clubs and restaraunts is because the waitresses complained about the second hand smoke and them smelling like smoke etc from being there all day.
OT- Trans fats are worthless aren't they? Not only are guns good to protect you from criminal/malicious people with guns, but the government when they overstep their bounds and your rights.
It's their choice/problem if they work in a restaurant that allows smoking, isn't it?
Smokers fault for living in a democratic country where the majority doesn't want smoke in their resturants, isn't it?
i'm waiting for the day when it will be illegal to laugh in public, 'cause you know, some might get offended, it might scare some kids or it could damage ones ears. we'll have to bring our smiles with us
On October 06 2007 19:58 CharlieMurphy wrote: Afaik, the reason why they banned smoking in clubs and restaraunts is because the waitresses complained about the second hand smoke and them smelling like smoke etc from being there all day.
OT- Trans fats are worthless aren't they? Not only are guns good to protect you from criminal/malicious people with guns, but the government when they overstep their bounds and your rights.
It's their choice/problem if they work in a restaurant that allows smoking, isn't it?
Smokers fault for living in a democratic country where the majority doesn't want smoke in their resturants, isn't it?
If they want to smoke they can go somewhere else.
That is a shitty argument because every waitress chooses her job, and no citizen chooses his birthplace. If you knew it's a smoking restaurant, why the hell apply for the job?
Screw society. The mob is a bunch of apes, and politicians will prohibit anything to lick their asses. "The society is against it" is simply not an argument since the society doesn't even have conscience.
Whoever prohibits smoking for me will get fucked in the face, thank you.
are you dumb? if the majority of the people in a society dont smoke and so dont enjoy inhaling your smog, then yes the society is against it. just because you have a disgusting habit doesnt mean we have to put up with its byproducts.
I am a smoker and I can understand most of the rules that have been set up recently. Some, however, I find highly discriminating. I've never smoked in a restaurant, if I'm waiting for the bus and there's a mother with her child I don't stand next to them smoking and I can perfectly understand why smoking should be illegal in clubs/bars, but things are being taken too far right now. In my last year of school we weren't allowed to smoke outside under the roof. That means when it rained/snowed you had the choice to not smoke or struggle with the weather. Nowadays pretty much every train station in germany has a smokers zone. A yellow square that's painted on the ground in which smokers are allowed to have a cigarette. I think we've reached a point where things got a bit too far. I'm not proud of having that habit and hell I've tried to quit smoking numerous times, but I just couldn't make it.
On October 06 2007 19:58 CharlieMurphy wrote: Not only are guns good to protect you from criminal/malicious people with guns, but the government when they overstep their bounds and your rights.
Not to mention guns are a safe form of recreation (honestly I don't know of any link between places allowing recreational gun usage and crime going up).
On October 06 2007 22:27 skindzer wrote: Im proud of smoking.
why does TL attract so many conspiracy theorists? Not you too CM.
In the first quote, you can see how that ONE study goes against 2-3 decades of non-smoking studies. Scientists (other than the ones who wrote the study) are claiming its a lobbying tool with large problems in methodology and a rather shaky study all-together.
Its not a conspiracy by scientists. Scientists dont conspire to hide information. They just don't.
And scientists come from far too many backgrounds and countries to be controlled by politicians.
You really think when they do a Canadian study that they say "Ok guys, lets make sure we show second hand smoke is bad!"
And then independantly, an American group goes "Ok guys, lets make sure we show second hand smoke is bad!"
And then in Japan and Norway and Australia or whereever the else they've had these studies.
It's stupid.
I mean just think about it logically. We have very strong evidence that smoking leads to health problems. We see it with mortality rates and statistics. We see it in experiments (feeding second hand smoke to rats). We pretty much know taking a cigarette, and putting it in your mouth is very bad for your health. Denying this is a big fuck you to all the smokers who have died.
Second hand smoke is that same smoke without the filter in the way. Do you really think that's good for you?
Look. There is no cover-up and no conspiracy. You might as well be talking about the illuminati.
On October 06 2007 21:46 IdrA wrote: are you dumb? if the majority of the people in a society dont smoke and so dont enjoy inhaling your smog, then yes the society is against it. just because you have a disgusting habit doesnt mean we have to put up with its byproducts.
No I am not. Any more intelligent questions?
Look, I'm not an anti-social element, whenever I smoke, I try to make it so that people who are near don't get uncomfortable and such, but they are individuals, not a society. Society is easily influenced by whatever is fed to it, be it democracy, sex life propaganda, or an anti-smoking campaign. I do care for individual people. I don't give a complete damn about the society. See the difference? I would never smoke near a woman with a toddler, but if women with toddlers go on the streets and say "stop smoking and hurting us", the only thing they will get from me is "screw you" because I'm not gonna take the responsibility for shitty people who smoke near them. I don't like the idea of levelling and extrapolating the bad habits seen in some smokers on everyone. If you want more insight on how the "society" works, here you are:
It's very close to the smoking situation, although the level of hysteria for smoking might be abit less.
And, since you spoke of smog, do you own a car? Do you use air conditioning frequently? Because if you do, stop bitching about me, you hurt the atmosphere much more.
driving a car does not put the tailpipe near other people's faces, the issue is not a negative impact on the atmosphere. its that its unpleasent for the non-smokers around you when you smoke in public places. you admit that you realize smoking has a negative impact on people around you, since you dont do it near women/children, so what problem do you have with banning it in public places? the ban would be for the people who dont know/care and do it anyway.
Near other people's faces? Are you kidding me? Just to go to any big city and look into the window at dawn when light refraction angle allows you to see the smog. It is everywhere, how's that different from putting something in your face? I can wake up early some non-rainy day and provide you with a photo if you don't believe me. There are many unpleasant things in life, get to live with it, but as for the health effect, occasional passive smoking is really minor compared to that. Add up noise levels and psyche effects as an icing. You can just walk away from a particularly annoying smoker, you can't run away from smog, air conditioning-altered climate and that unstandible noise.
The point is that the definition of a public place is so vague. I remember visiting the US where I've had to wait like 16 hours to light a cig just because the JFK airport doesn't have a smoke zone. Boeing 767 is SPECIFICALLY built to have a smoking zone in the lavatory, it is absurd that it even has a special ventilation system for smokers, yet it is not used. And you can't leave the airport when you're scheduled on a connected flight arriving from other country. Some restaurants ban smoking? Ok, I'm just not gonna visit them. But there are nice atmospheric places built specifically for the smoke ambience that are just not gonna work without it. You know, black dyed wooden interior, faded lamps, black mirror tables, live jazz. I love such places. And here you go, some idiot from the government says that ALL restaurants must ban smoking and the ambience of such a place is ruined. I don't see the point, such places aren't being visited by health psychotics anyway. Moving on, is the street a public place? By logical definition, yes. Is your workplace a public place? By logical definition, not always. Yet you are allowed to smoke on the streets and aren't allowed to smoke at your workplace. Any sense? No.
On October 07 2007 00:13 ManaBlue wrote: The tax on all tabacco products should be directly proportional to the cost we incur in the medical system treating the diseases they cause.
So cigs aren't nearly taxed enough right now.
I hate smoking, so I'm pretty cold hearted about a person's "right to have a cheap cig if they want it".
Fuck that, you can sign a waiver stating we don't have to use public funds to treat your cancer than. It's retarded.
Cancer is treated by medical insurance. You pay for insurance. Now where are the public funds?
On October 07 2007 00:13 ManaBlue wrote: The tax on all tabacco products should be directly proportional to the cost we incur in the medical system treating the diseases they cause.
So cigs aren't nearly taxed enough right now.
I hate smoking, so I'm pretty cold hearted about a person's "right to have a cheap cig if they want it".
Fuck that, you can sign a waiver stating we don't have to use public funds to treat your cancer than. It's retarded.
Cancer is treated by medical insurance. You pay for insurance. Now where are the public funds?
This is for Canada, where a lot of the expenses is covered for you.
On October 07 2007 00:13 ManaBlue wrote: The tax on all tabacco products should be directly proportional to the cost we incur in the medical system treating the diseases they cause.
Sure, and how about in return taxing non-smokers for all the diseases caused by not smoking? Like living way too long. Obesity. Depression. Alcoholism. Assholery. [Factually -- smokers have 10 year shorter life expectancy. As long as they are educated about it, what's it to me or you? So they live to 69 instead of 79. It's not like most 75 year olds are productive citizens anymore. Dying a bit earlier in their old age means using less public retirement money, less old age related drugs, treatments and procedures, and suffer less from age related diseases like Parkinson and Alzheimer]
I find most smokers are cooler to be around than non-smokers.
I'm all for everyone having their own private space, so I'm OK with smoking restrictions and large public non-smoking areas. But smokers are people too, and should to be given fair and reasonable accommodation. These are decent people who don't deserve the shyt the anti-smoking crusaders smear on them. Smoking doesn't cause anything like "reefer madness" or violent drunkenness. Smokers are normal, decent, functional people. But anti-smoking activists try to frame smokers as pariahs , lepers, rude, crude and inconsiderate idiots or worse, virtually guilty of premeditated mass physical assault, using their ever shriller psychological/public relations warfare and fear/hatemongering.
whos to say those old people wouldn't of lived longer had they not smoked, moot point really. as an asthmatic I really hate being exposed to second hand smoke, I feel the effects a good day after if I inhale enough of it, and besides it fucking stinks. I do think people should have freedom to do what they want as long they aren't hurting anyone in the process, tell me what's wrong with that?
I love how conspiracy theorists always ignore the mountains of evidence that oppose their claim and choose to believe a minority of opinions that has far less evidence. The fact that the two oldest people both smoked does not prove that smoking is not harmful to your health. This is a mere two examples. Compared to the evidence from studies of thousands of people that show that smoking is harmful, these two examples don't mean much.
Stop being an idealist because idealists are unbelievably hard to deal with (much harder than smokers ^^). When you're driving a car, you're dangerous and you can hurt people in the process, when you drink, you can hurt people, when you inhale, you goddamn take the oxygen I might have taken. For god's sake, you can even kill someone when playing golf. It is reality. Nothing you do is safe. So don't be overzealous and stop that double standard bs as if smoking was the only thing that made people feel uncomfortable. Your existence makes other people feel uncomfortable, because you take up space, take up oxygen, spend people's money when you break your leg riding a bicycle (let's tax bicycle riding), buy that last portion of french fries I've longed so much to eat, create noise and (yes yes) you stink. Like any other human being does. Following your logic, the best thing for you is cease to exist. And, like smoking hurts asthmatic, your meaningless wandering around hurts paranoid people, and your big smile makes people with a strong inferiority complex commit suicide. Start feeling ashamed.
Dunno, if you want my definition of a healthy response in your situation, it would be just asking the smoker near you to go somewhere else, explaining your problem. Trust me, people are not all douche bags and noone wants to hurt you specifically. Running to daddy speaking some sissy stuff about freedoms and rights looks like an unhealthy response.
And btw, about bicycle riding. Those bastards are spending our hard-earned tax money to treat their absolutely unnecessary injuries. Let's tax bicycles, like 100$ per ride, ok?
On October 07 2007 01:28 BluzMan wrote: 2 nortydog:
Stop being an idealist because idealists are unbelievably hard to deal with (much harder than smokers ^^). When you're driving a car, you're dangerous and you can hurt people in the process, when you drink, you can hurt people, when you inhale, you goddamn take the oxygen I might have taken. For god's sake, you can even kill someone when playing golf. It is reality. Nothing you do is safe. So don't be overzealous and stop that double standard bs as if smoking was the only thing that made people feel uncomfortable. Your existence makes other people feel uncomfortable, because you take up space, take up oxygen, spend people's money when you break your leg riding a bicycle (let's tax bicycle riding), buy that last portion of french fries I've longed so much to eat, create noise and (yes yes) you stink. Like any other human being does. Following your logic, the best thing for you is cease to exist. And, like smoking hurts asthmatic, your meaningless wandering around hurts paranoid people, and your big smile makes people with a strong inferiority complex commit suicide. Start feeling ashamed.
Dunno, if you want my definition of a healthy response in your situation, it would be just asking the smoker near you to go somewhere else, explaining your problem. Trust me, people are not all douche bags and noone wants to hurt you specifically. Running to daddy speaking some sissy stuff about freedoms and rights looks like an unhealthy response.
And btw, about bicycle riding. Those bastards are spending our hard-earned tax money to treat their absolutely unnecessary injuries. Let's tax bicycles, like 100$ per ride, ok?
Your analogies do not make any sense.
Yes, there are some vague similarities, but vague similarities between two items does not constitute a good argument for their being treated the same. Nearly every person who posts in threads where there is a debate uses this kind of fallacious reasoning.
Let me refute all of your terrible analogies:
For one, do you really think someone else breathing affects your ability to take in enough oxygen or is harmful to your health? If you do, your belief is unbased and most likely wrong.
The fact that you can hurt someone when you drink does not make smoking tolerable, it merely means that smoking is equally hazardous.
Can you honestly say that the chances of harming someone while playing golf are anywhere near the chances of harming someone's health by smoking? If you smoke around someone, you're going to harm them, at least somewhat. The odds of harming someone's health playing golf are incredibly low, and I'm relatively certain that the number of deaths caused by golf are fewer than the deaths related to second hand smoke.
As for your bicycling analogy, more people ride bikes than smoke. Smokers also spend an incredibly large amount of taxpayers' money compared to bicyclers, at least in terms of medical bills. The two amounts are hardly even comparable.
I believe smokers should still be allowed in places like bars, and in smoking sections in restaurants and the like. I think it would be a good compromise if smokers were allowed to smoke anywhere they wanted, but with the restriction that if someone asked them not to smoke near them that they must relocate. Unfortunately, this is impossible to enforce, and I would much rather sacrifice the smokers' ability to smoke wherever they want than sacrifice non-smokers' right to not have people damage their health.
His analogies make perfect sense to me. Anything with a calculated risk (regardless of how severe or not) should be equally, justly, and appropriately taxed the same as smoking if they are going to use that logic. Trust me you have a much greater chance of dying in a car accident or some other motion/action related thing than smoking. The people dying from smoking have been smokers for like over 40 years, I guarantee you that in that 40 years you have a better chance of dying from something more asinine than lighting up a cig.
Honestly second hand smoke has never bothered me except when I was in a poorly ventilated room. I seriously doubt that the smoke is as bad as they claim, except maybe for the aforementioned scenario and/or around children. The smell getting on your clothes is kind of annoying but hey I know I'm around it and its gonna happen, just like if I went to a BBQ or bonfire, my clothes are gonna reek.
Not being able to smoke even outside at a bar is ridiculous because they will lose a shit load of customers just for the fact that when you drink you crave cigerettes more often. The fact that smoking is a social thing. Its a conversation starter, its a conversation placeholder, its judge of character (do they share? do they smoke a lot out of nerves? etc.) etc It helps a lot socially. Especially at a place like a bar where most people are there to have a good time socializing and meeting new people.
Banning smoking everywhere is just ridiculous. And the other point about it causing pollution, I think that has more to do with the butts than the smoke because like someone else already mentioned Cars, machines, and basically anything using electricity that works from a coal based plant is far worse.
But lets not side track this on global warming or pollution.
In Norway people are only allowed to smoke outdoors, and nobody seems to care. It was the biggest non-happening since the millenium change. Smokers can smoke outdoors all they want imho, and from my experience that is the rule in most american states? (exceptions I remember: Nevada).
Everybody KNOWS smoking is dangerous, and it WILL (not may, not probably) hurt you and people around you. It is a stupid habit, but it is a part of our society right now. We should have laws that protects the non-smokers, because it is dangerous for them, and they don't have the choice. Fortunately smokers are a dying breed (I can't talk for US, only using my country as an example), and they will hopefully "die out" in a foreseable future. High taxes on cigarettes are rightfully explained by the massive health costs smokers inflict on the medical system.
But - the smokers themselves have to chose. Most of us damage our own bodies with something, usually alcohol, drugs or cigarettes (I belive overweight is a bigger problem in the US). But it is our choice, and we should be allowed to make it ourselves. The information is there, and people know that all these things are dangerous. There are however no logical reason to not have laws to protect the people who can't make the choice themselves.
EDIT: To Charlie: Cigarettes contains insanely dangerous chemicals. Do you know that for every cigarette you smoke you destroy something like 100 000 genes in your body?
There are so many stupid cig facts: like 'every one that you smoke you lose 15 minutes of your life' etc. What they don't mention in those is that other daily activities may have the same effects or the effects are not as bad as they sound. 100,000 does not seem like a lot compared to the sextillions of cells (did you mean cells?) and they grow back right?
On October 07 2007 04:31 ToKoreaWithLove wrote: Cigarettes contains insanely dangerous chemicals. Do you know that for every cigarette you smoke you destroy something like 100 000 genes in your body?
Holy shit! That's like four or five times your entire genome!
...or possibly it's 4-5 cells. Hmm...
Not that I don't think cigarettes are bad for you, but if you don't know what something means, you probably shouldn't use it as an argument.
Tobacco is a lot different now then 50 years ago. Now its a hardcore drug, every year the tobacco companies come up with stronger strains that are more addictive/unhealthy.
well it is not a conspiracy. a bit difficult to describe, but these things are similar to the abolition campaign or the recycling thing.
a channeling of public moral energy through various institutional devices. conspiracies are only workable if they are political engineering efforts. things like the neo-con movement is a conspiracy, but i dont think this means too much to one who does not understand the political structure in the US.
On October 07 2007 04:31 ToKoreaWithLove wrote: Cigarettes contains insanely dangerous chemicals. Do you know that for every cigarette you smoke you destroy something like 100 000 genes in your body?
Holy shit! That's like four or five times your entire genome!
...or possibly it's 4-5 cells. Hmm...
Not that I don't think cigarettes are bad for you, but if you don't know what something means, you probably shouldn't use it as an argument.
Damn I screwed up I mean DNA-molecules of course. I'll fill in later, not time now.
On October 07 2007 04:31 ToKoreaWithLove wrote: Cigarettes contains insanely dangerous chemicals. Do you know that for every cigarette you smoke you destroy something like 100 000 genes in your body?
Holy shit! That's like four or five times your entire genome!
...or possibly it's 4-5 cells. Hmm...
Not that I don't think cigarettes are bad for you, but if you don't know what something means, you probably shouldn't use it as an argument.
Damn I screwed up I mean DNA-molecules of course. I'll fill in later, not time now.
On further consideration, I think your original statement could be interpreted as having this sensible meaning.
It could mean the functional destruction of 100,000 genes distributed among the DNA of a similar number of cells. Each instance of damage could be harmless, fatal or crippling to the cell, or could make the cell cancerous.
I was just making a stupid error, your interpretation was spot on based on my wrong choice of words.
To explain the effect on cigarette smoke on DNA in an easy way. Every time you smoke a cigarette about 100 000 DNA-threads breaks in your body. Of course there are fuctions to repair these, and usually they get their work right. But now and then the will get one wrong. Now this might be harmless, it might be cancer, it might kill a cell, etc.
Then there is the beauty of COPD. A fun disease that will slowly render your lungs useless. The funny part is that smokers have a 25% chance of catching it. Did I say catching? I mean - developing it. It is a fun disease because it is almost exclusive to smokers (90%). I know a nice man with this disease. He is about 40 years old. He can walk about 10 meters before he needs a break. COPD is pretty unique in itself because it is a disease that targets smokers almost exclusively, and it is a very good indicatior (I'm tempted to say proof) that smoking cigarettes is as bad as the good people who are researching this are telling you.
I think the effects of second hand smoke is exaggerated or worded in ways that it doesn't properly contextualize the effects. Most studies mention a percentage increase in the catching of already fairly rare diseases, numerating it makes it appear to be an almost negligible statistic.
A lot of money is wasted on research on second hand smoke. Conclusion: Breathing in low-quality air, or air with unhealthy and/or toxic substances in it is bad for you. Well duh. Nobody is going to doubt that the smoke inhaled and exhaled via cigarette smoke is bad for you. It does cause diseases. The diseases occur in the high-volume inhalers, the smokers themselves. Second hand smoke except in some places that have a very high volume of cigarette smoke in the air[EDIT: this is referring to something like an apartment with people who smoke a pack a day type environment, where the smog covers the top half of the room] is very low volume and is no worse for you than the current state of the atmosphere. Not to mention that measuring how much second hand smoke is effecting somebody is impossible. These diseases take long periods of time to occur and quantifying how much of it you are breathing in and comparing it directly to the levels of other hazardous gases you are inhaling and identifying exactly what the originator of the hazardous gases is is impossible. There is too many different hazardous pollutants in the air we breathe all around us to determine that sort of thing, even a mildly accurate estimate would be impossible.
All the studies end up saying is that breathing in polluted air is bad for you. Congrats, have a good solution? Any claim that a smoker is increasing the pollution in the air you are breathing by any significant margin is just spewing ignorance.
Smoking is still annoying though. All my smoking friends know I despise the smell. I often won't stand near them if they are smoking and in the event I do I go through great lengths to make sure the smoke doesn't get near me as the smell is revolting. I couldn't date a smoker(have, the taste is not something I wish to adapt to) and would greatly prefer if I never had to be around smoking. Thankfully since it is banned from most public indoor places and most smokers are aware of others not wanting it near them and are polite enough to act accordingly I rarely need to be around smoking. They're happy, I'm happy. Though I still think it's ridiculous that privately owned businesses don't have the option to allow smoking. It should be up to the business owner to decide what environment he wishes to provide and then up to the customer to decide to give them business given their knowledge of the business owner's decision to allow or disallow it.
Claiming that they're actually harming you by any significant amount is ludicrous. Unless they're blowing it directly into your face it diffuses into the rest of the polluted air you are breathing and becomes a toxic mix of all the other crap you're inhaling.
On October 07 2007 00:13 ManaBlue wrote: The tax on all tabacco products should be directly proportional to the cost we incur in the medical system treating the diseases they cause.
So cigs aren't nearly taxed enough right now.
I hate smoking, so I'm pretty cold hearted about a person's "right to have a cheap cig if they want it".
Fuck that, you can sign a waiver stating we don't have to use public funds to treat your cancer than. It's retarded.
I would love that, sign me up! In fact, I'll do that for every shitty government program, then I wont have my money stollen to fund them. Too bad that's not an option, isn't it?
Many of these smoking laws people talk about here are totally unreasonable. If I own a restaurant or a business, I should be free to choose whether or not smoking is allowed on the premises. It is my private property, and that should thus be my decision. That said, I am neither a business owner nor a smoker. If a person decides to eat at a restaurant that permits smoking, they are accepting/inviting the consequences of such actions. These consequences obviously include any negative health effects of the second hand smoke. Seeing as how the US health care system is much more privately handled than Canada's, the whole "we can tax them because we have to pay the medical bills" argument is kinda shot to pieces too, imo. Those who smoke are often poor also. A guy down the street from me lost his house due to inability to pay his bills, and he smoked A LOT. All these anti-smoking people crusading to raise taxes on smokers apparently are either unaware that these are some of the people who will be paying up, or maybe they just don't care.
On October 07 2007 10:31 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: I think the effects of second hand smoke is exaggerated or worded in ways that it doesn't properly contextualize the effects. Most studies mention a percentage increase in the catching of already fairly rare diseases, numerating it makes it appear to be an almost negligible statistic.
A lot of money is wasted on research on second hand smoke. Conclusion: Breathing in low-quality air, or air with unhealthy and/or toxic substances in it is bad for you. Well duh. Nobody is going to doubt that the smoke inhaled and exhaled via cigarette smoke is bad for you. It does cause diseases. The diseases occur in the high-volume inhalers, the smokers themselves. Second hand smoke except in some places that have a very high volume of cigarette smoke in the air[EDIT: this is referring to something like an apartment with people who smoke a pack a day type environment, where the smog covers the top half of the room] is very low volume and is no worse for you than the current state of the atmosphere. Not to mention that measuring how much second hand smoke is effecting somebody is impossible. These diseases take long periods of time to occur and quantifying how much of it you are breathing in and comparing it directly to the levels of other hazardous gases you are inhaling and identifying exactly what the originator of the hazardous gases is is impossible. There is too many different hazardous pollutants in the air we breathe all around us to determine that sort of thing, even a mildly accurate estimate would be impossible.
All the studies end up saying is that breathing in polluted air is bad for you. Congrats, have a good solution? Any claim that a smoker is increasing the pollution in the air you are breathing by any significant margin is just spewing ignorance.
Smoking is still annoying though. All my smoking friends know I despise the smell. I often won't stand near them if they are smoking and in the event I do I go through great lengths to make sure the smoke doesn't get near me as the smell is revolting. I couldn't date a smoker(have, the taste is not something I wish to adapt to) and would greatly prefer if I never had to be around smoking. Thankfully since it is banned from most public indoor places and most smokers are aware of others not wanting it near them and are polite enough to act accordingly I rarely need to be around smoking. They're happy, I'm happy. Though I still think it's ridiculous that privately owned businesses don't have the option to allow smoking. It should be up to the business owner to decide what environment he wishes to provide and then up to the customer to decide to give them business given their knowledge of the business owner's decision to allow or disallow it.
Claiming that they're actually harming you by any significant amount is ludicrous. Unless they're blowing it directly into your face it diffuses into the rest of the polluted air you are breathing and becomes a toxic mix of all the other crap you're inhaling.
On October 07 2007 10:31 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: I think the effects of second hand smoke is exaggerated or worded in ways that it doesn't properly contextualize the effects. Most studies mention a percentage increase in the catching of already fairly rare diseases, numerating it makes it appear to be an almost negligible statistic.
A lot of money is wasted on research on second hand smoke. Conclusion: Breathing in low-quality air, or air with unhealthy and/or toxic substances in it is bad for you. Well duh. Nobody is going to doubt that the smoke inhaled and exhaled via cigarette smoke is bad for you. It does cause diseases. The diseases occur in the high-volume inhalers, the smokers themselves. Second hand smoke except in some places that have a very high volume of cigarette smoke in the air[EDIT: this is referring to something like an apartment with people who smoke a pack a day type environment, where the smog covers the top half of the room] is very low volume and is no worse for you than the current state of the atmosphere. Not to mention that measuring how much second hand smoke is effecting somebody is impossible. These diseases take long periods of time to occur and quantifying how much of it you are breathing in and comparing it directly to the levels of other hazardous gases you are inhaling and identifying exactly what the originator of the hazardous gases is is impossible. There is too many different hazardous pollutants in the air we breathe all around us to determine that sort of thing, even a mildly accurate estimate would be impossible.
All the studies end up saying is that breathing in polluted air is bad for you. Congrats, have a good solution? Any claim that a smoker is increasing the pollution in the air you are breathing by any significant margin is just spewing ignorance.
Smoking is still annoying though. All my smoking friends know I despise the smell. I often won't stand near them if they are smoking and in the event I do I go through great lengths to make sure the smoke doesn't get near me as the smell is revolting. I couldn't date a smoker(have, the taste is not something I wish to adapt to) and would greatly prefer if I never had to be around smoking. Thankfully since it is banned from most public indoor places and most smokers are aware of others not wanting it near them and are polite enough to act accordingly I rarely need to be around smoking. They're happy, I'm happy. Though I still think it's ridiculous that privately owned businesses don't have the option to allow smoking. It should be up to the business owner to decide what environment he wishes to provide and then up to the customer to decide to give them business given their knowledge of the business owner's decision to allow or disallow it.
Claiming that they're actually harming you by any significant amount is ludicrous. Unless they're blowing it directly into your face it diffuses into the rest of the polluted air you are breathing and becomes a toxic mix of all the other crap you're inhaling.
And how do you explain that ? Smoking ban brings big cut in heart attacks in Scotland, study finds. And no, not only for smokers. There are studies like that for other countries as well (Ireland for example).
Looks like bullshit because even Wikipedia (which is very anti-smoke propagandistic) states that smoking health effects take 10-20 years to kick in. They introduced the ban in March 2006. One year is absolutely neglible. They may have not mentioned some other health program that kicked in that year or just purely made up the data. Another thing that may have kicked is just the stress effect - those who were previously stressed by smokers near them are now feeling more content, therefore effectively reducing risks.
Laws trying to dictate whether restaurant/bar owners will allow smoking in their establishment are retarded. If you're worried about the health effects of second-hand smoke in public places, you're a wuss.
although i see the smoking crusade etc as in progressive spirit, they are pretty misguided at least on the legal front. i am no fan of legal activism for these health habits, a bit trivial, and it uses up the public tolerance for such manipulations, making more important ones less effective. the propaganda campaigns could use some reworking as well, as it is not doing enough to highlight the nonprivate side of individual action.
On October 07 2007 20:21 Sawajiri wrote: I hate smoking and am very pleased to see that we non-smokers are winning the battle all around the globe.
=)
its not a war you fucking idiot -_- is my right to do what i want... so yeah you are winning the battle against freedom and liberties... awesome! you douchebag.
I dont know whats the argument against smoking zones in restaurants/bars... i mean seriously wtf is wrong with that?.
If health were the problem the goverment should just make mandatory a good ventilation and air extraction system in restaurants and bars, and if workers dont like it dont fucking take the job, its a hazzard of the job, you are not willing to take it, then dont apply god dammnit, like in every other fucking job.
On October 07 2007 19:04 BluzMan wrote: Looks like bullshit because even Wikipedia (which is very anti-smoke propagandistic) states that smoking health effects take 10-20 years to kick in. They introduced the ban in March 2006. One year is absolutely neglible. They may have not mentioned some other health program that kicked in that year or just purely made up the data. Another thing that may have kicked is just the stress effect - those who were previously stressed by smokers near them are now feeling more content, therefore effectively reducing risks.
Yeah that was before those studies. Guess what studies are for. They are proving theories. It´s called evidence. It was more effective than anyone would have thought before. Yes surprising, but numbers are numbers.
On October 07 2007 20:21 Sawajiri wrote: I hate smoking and am very pleased to see that we non-smokers are winning the battle all around the globe.
=)
its not a war you fucking idiot -_- is my right to do what i want... so yeah you are winning the battle against freedom and liberties... awesome! you douchebag.
I dont know whats the argument against smoking zones in restaurants/bars... i mean seriously wtf is wrong with that?.
If health were the problem the goverment should just make mandatory a good ventilation and air extraction system in restaurants and bars, and if workers dont like it dont fucking take the job, its a hazzard of the job, you are not willing to take it, then dont apply god dammnit, like in every other fucking job.
On October 07 2007 19:04 BluzMan wrote: Looks like bullshit because even Wikipedia (which is very anti-smoke propagandistic) states that smoking health effects take 10-20 years to kick in. They introduced the ban in March 2006. One year is absolutely neglible. They may have not mentioned some other health program that kicked in that year or just purely made up the data. Another thing that may have kicked is just the stress effect - those who were previously stressed by smokers near them are now feeling more content, therefore effectively reducing risks.
Yeah that was before those studies. Guess what studies are for. They are proving theories. It´s called evidence. It was more effective than anyone would have thought before. Yes surprising, but numbers are numbers.
You don't think wikipedia links their sources, right? The thought that the counter-argument might be as well based on evidence did not come to you or you just want to put in a remark you and only you might consider "smart" or "sarcastic"? The 20% decrease in one year sounds like bullshit to any person with common sense, contradicts tons of data acquired in previous researches and is effectively biased because that article links two facts that are not necessary linked without any research on what other factors could influence thier numbers and they quote biased parties in the first place.
On October 07 2007 20:21 Sawajiri wrote: I hate smoking and am very pleased to see that we non-smokers are winning the battle all around the globe.
=)
its not a war you fucking idiot -_- is my right to do what i want... so yeah you are winning the battle against freedom and liberties... awesome! you douchebag.
I dont know whats the argument against smoking zones in restaurants/bars... i mean seriously wtf is wrong with that?.
If health were the problem the goverment should just make mandatory a good ventilation and air extraction system in restaurants and bars, and if workers dont like it dont fucking take the job, its a hazzard of the job, you are not willing to take it, then dont apply god dammnit, like in every other fucking job.
I hate you ppl i really do -_-
Scenario 1: A restaurant does not allow smoking. People work there and actually stay healthy. Everyone can go there, even parents with small kids without exposing them to smoking. You can go there too, but you need to keep your nerves in check and not smoke for a little while, or go outside (most bars have heated seatings outside in Norway after they banned smoking), lets hope you don't show your insecurities and call people douchebag and idiots, oh wait, its too late.
Scenario 2: You can smoke as much as you want in the restaurant. Some people will have to quit their job/not start working there or simply live with the issues. People with allergies or people with kids will mostly choose not to go there. But its ok, its "freedom and liberties", everyone not agreeing with you are idiots and douchebag, right?
Its funny how important it is for you to be allowed to smoke in a restaurant, but its not important that people can work there and actually survive. How about its my liberty and freedom to eat and drink without risking my life for it? Oh I forgot, when you say freedom and liberties, you mean you personally not giving a shit about other people.
I read alot about health and babies these days, try reading about smoking and infants, or smoking and SIDS. But its all propaganda and a conspiracy you know; those scientists and midwives rarely know what they talk about.
And this is of course withouth even talking about COPD-related costs and so on.
On October 07 2007 20:21 Sawajiri wrote: I hate smoking and am very pleased to see that we non-smokers are winning the battle all around the globe.
=)
its not a war you fucking idiot -_- is my right to do what i want... so yeah you are winning the battle against freedom and liberties... awesome! you douchebag.
I dont know whats the argument against smoking zones in restaurants/bars... i mean seriously wtf is wrong with that?.
If health were the problem the goverment should just make mandatory a good ventilation and air extraction system in restaurants and bars, and if workers dont like it dont fucking take the job, its a hazzard of the job, you are not willing to take it, then dont apply god dammnit, like in every other fucking job.
I hate you ppl i really do -_-
Scenario 1: A restaurant does not allow smoking. People work there and actually stay healthy. Everyone can go there, even parents with small kids without exposing them to smoking. You can go there too, but you need to keep your nerves in check and not smoke for a little while, or go outside (most bars have heated seatings outside in Norway after they banned smoking), lets hope you don't show your insecurities and call people douchebag and idiots, oh wait, its too late.
Scenario 2: You can smoke as much as you want in the restaurant. Some people will have to quit their job/not start working there or simply live with the issues. People with allergies or people with kids will mostly choose not to go there. But its ok, its "freedom and liberties", everyone not agreeing with you are idiots and douchebag, right?
Its funny how important it is for you to be allowed to smoke in a restaurant, but its not important that people can work there and actually survive. How about its my liberty and freedom to eat and drink without risking my life for it? Oh I forgot, when you say freedom and liberties, you mean you personally not giving a shit about other people.
I read alot about health and babies these days, try reading about smoking and infants, or smoking and SIDS. But its all propaganda and a conspiracy you know; those scientists and midwives rarely know what they talk about.
And this is of course withouth even talking about COPD-related costs and so on.
How about scenario 3:
"There are restaurants that allow smoking, there are restaurants that don't. Everyone happy."
which is what every person in this thread is talking about. Care to read?
On October 07 2007 20:21 Sawajiri wrote: I hate smoking and am very pleased to see that we non-smokers are winning the battle all around the globe.
=)
its not a war you fucking idiot -_- is my right to do what i want... so yeah you are winning the battle against freedom and liberties... awesome! you douchebag.
I dont know whats the argument against smoking zones in restaurants/bars... i mean seriously wtf is wrong with that?.
If health were the problem the goverment should just make mandatory a good ventilation and air extraction system in restaurants and bars, and if workers dont like it dont fucking take the job, its a hazzard of the job, you are not willing to take it, then dont apply god dammnit, like in every other fucking job.
I hate you ppl i really do -_-
Sure you have the right to do what you want, but so do others. If your freedom impinges on that of others, then theres a problem, and a reasonable line needs to be drawn.
One post gave the example of some random guy not wiping the toilet clean after using it. That might be how he wants to act, but it inconveniences the next guy. Maybe that guy wants to use a clean toilet. So whos right?
Or, what if I dont like a guy, so I go kill him. Hey, I'm just doing what I want to do. Whats wrong with that? Whats wrong is that my "freedom" to do as I please directly damages other people, and hence compromises their right to live how they wish to live.
And thats pretty much what rules are for. You've got to decide where to draw the line, Sure, not everyone will agree, but its still a lot better than letting everyone do as they please.
You might want to smoke in a restaurant, but maybe the guy next to you wants to be in a place where people dont smoke. If you think he should just get up and go to a place where there are no smokers, hes entitled to the opinion that you should get up and go to a place thats exclusive for smokers. So whos right for freedom is greater?
And lets not even talk about the damage smoking causes. Its a risk factor for roughly a third of all cancers. Lung cancer, CAD and strokes are the top 3 causes of morbidity and mortality in the US, and smoking is a major risk factor for all three. And there are tons of non cancerous conditions caused by smoking. And unfortunately, second hand smoke IS dangerous. So when you're smoking and someones kids next to you are inhaling that smoke, you're damaging them. Whats more, you might be influencing them at an age when they're not smart enough to really understand the implications of such a habit.
So stop thinking about your freedom all the time, and try to realize that compromises have to be made in civil society.
Another reason for disallowing smoking in public places is to reduce peoples smoking. I guess some of you are smokers. If you smoke in your car, you are likely to have a few cigarettes while driving somewhere. I know I did. If you can smoke inside your home, it is a lot easier to light up while watching tv, after dinner etc. If you can smoke in bars you are very likely to go thru a 20-pack during a night out.
But if you have to go outside, while not terribly inconvinient, you will smoke less. No matter how one rages on about mommy government, this is a good thing. As humblegar mentioned most bars, resturants, public places have accomondations for smokers outside. I'll use my country as an example yet again:
Smoking inside public places was disallowed from 2004 I belive. We had a massive debate leading up to that. Nobody likes to be told what to do. But the funny thing is that everybody are positive now. The smokers are happy because they smoke less. The non-smokers are happy because they smell better and can breathe better. The employees reports less health problems.
The government combined the ban with a massive campaign against smoking, and the results are positive - the numbers have dwindled from about 30% smokers in 2003 to about 25% now, and is still going down.
I'm not saying this is the only option. Viable options includes separate smoking rooms, smoking "clubs", etc.
On October 07 2007 10:31 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: Claiming that they're actually harming you by any significant amount is ludicrous. Unless they're blowing it directly into your face it diffuses into the rest of the polluted air you are breathing and becomes a toxic mix of all the other crap you're inhaling.
And that claim is ludicrous because? Because you think so? Because you heard so somewhere? CMDT, 2007, quoted verbatim:
"Of approximately 450,000 smoking-related deaths in the United States annually, as many as 53,000 are attributable to environmental tobacco smoke."
53,000 people dying because of second hand smoke every year just in the USA is pretty significant. I dont find anything ludicrous about it.
The book just has a page on smoking, but its still pretty scary.
Whats more, the time period where most people start smoking is high school and college. Do you really think a high school kid is wise enough to make a decision that can potentially massively influence his entire life? Whats more, the decision to start smoking is pretty much always uninformed. Sure, everyones heard smoking causes cancer and COPD, but nobody really researches a bit before picking it up.
I also dont get why you think passive smoking will only be damaging if blown directly into ones face, and I dont know where you got this idea from. Is that how you "think" tobacco smoke works? Gas diffuses, and you dont need to pump someone lungs with 100kgs of tobacco smoke everyday for him or her to suffer the ill effects. And tobacco smoke doesnt need to "mix" with the rest of the polluted air to be harmful. It carries 40+ identified carcinogens, god knows how many unidentified ones.
On October 07 2007 19:04 BluzMan wrote: Looks like bullshit because even Wikipedia (which is very anti-smoke propagandistic) states that smoking health effects take 10-20 years to kick in. They introduced the ban in March 2006. One year is absolutely neglible. They may have not mentioned some other health program that kicked in that year or just purely made up the data. Another thing that may have kicked is just the stress effect - those who were previously stressed by smokers near them are now feeling more content, therefore effectively reducing risks.
Yeah that was before those studies. Guess what studies are for. They are proving theories. It´s called evidence. It was more effective than anyone would have thought before. Yes surprising, but numbers are numbers.
You don't think wikipedia links their sources, right? The thought that the counter-argument might be as well based on evidence did not come to you or you just want to put in a remark you and only you might consider "smart" or "sarcastic"? The 20% decrease in one year sounds like bullshit to any person with common sense, contradicts tons of data acquired in previous researches and is effectively biased because that article links two facts that are not necessary linked without any research on what other factors could influence thier numbers and they quote biased parties in the first place.
I just read the wikipedia-article concerning smoking bans and yes it contains the scottish study among health effects. It links to BBC as source. So what are you talking about? Maybe your information is outdated?
Of course effects on deaths inflicted by lung cancer are only expected in the long run, but they are talking about heart attacks. It seems like exposure to smoke can induce heart attacks for already endangered individuals.
A 17%-drop was never seen before, you really think a health program could do that ??? Only a change of lifestyle could do that, now guess what change there was in scotland ...
I think the main reason they banned smoking in public places is to make people do it less. I also believe that the law they want to pass in California (to ban smoking outisde, laff..) is for the same reason, because if you can't smoke anywhere but your home, how much would you smoke?
I personally think banning smoking in restaurants and bars is a bad idea. It seperates peoples and creates a new social group which in turn results in segregation. To every non-smoker who thinks they are 'winning the war' on smoking, you may as well call yourself a fucking racist, or a homophobe, or a nazi... ;/
On October 08 2007 05:30 Amber[LighT] wrote: To every non-smoker who thinks they are 'winning the war' on smoking, you may as well call yourself a fucking racist, or a homophobe, or a nazi... ;/
This is pretty stupid because you can't choose your race or sexual orientation but you can choose to not start or quit smoking. I quit after 5 years of smoking pack a day w/o nicotine patches or progressively lowering amount of smoked cigarettes. One day I just decided to stop smoking and i did that => so people who are crying that they can't stop are just pussy crybabies with no will.
Even though smoking is hazardous to health and the smell is unpleasant, I really sympathize with smokers. They are the target of so many ridiculous taxes. It used to be what, 99 cents a pack about 20 years ago, now it's like $5.00? Smokers get railroaded because bills are proposed that will fund X programs, and the public is told that the money for the bill will come from cigarette/cigar tax increases. So naturally everyone who doesn't smoke says "well that's fine by me, I don't smoke, who cares?". For the people that do smoke, especially considering if you've been smoking for 7 years you become physically addicted, they're forced to pay even more money. I think the most recent proposition was a $10.00 cigar tax to fund who-knows-what... probably "clean air" this or "clear water" that or some similarly nonsensical bill.
From a financial perspective, think of it as a variation of the "First They Came" poem. First they came for the money of the smokers, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a smoker. It's really quite ridiculous.
EDIT: Oh, and I should also mention that the above is exactly why smoking will never be banned. The government relies on smokers too heavily to fund their bills.
On October 07 2007 10:31 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: Claiming that they're actually harming you by any significant amount is ludicrous. Unless they're blowing it directly into your face it diffuses into the rest of the polluted air you are breathing and becomes a toxic mix of all the other crap you're inhaling.
And that claim is ludicrous because? Because you think so? Because you heard so somewhere? CMDT, 2007, quoted verbatim:
"Of approximately 450,000 smoking-related deaths in the United States annually, as many as 53,000 are attributable to environmental tobacco smoke."
53,000 people dying because of second hand smoke every year just in the USA is pretty significant. I dont find anything ludicrous about it.
The book just has a page on smoking, but its still pretty scary.
Whats more, the time period where most people start smoking is high school and college. Do you really think a high school kid is wise enough to make a decision that can potentially massively influence his entire life? Whats more, the decision to start smoking is pretty much always uninformed. Sure, everyones heard smoking causes cancer and COPD, but nobody really researches a bit before picking it up.
I also dont get why you think passive smoking will only be damaging if blown directly into ones face, and I dont know where you got this idea from. Is that how you "think" tobacco smoke works? Gas diffuses, and you dont need to pump someone lungs with 100kgs of tobacco smoke everyday for him or her to suffer the ill effects. And tobacco smoke doesnt need to "mix" with the rest of the polluted air to be harmful. It carries 40+ identified carcinogens, god knows how many unidentified ones.
I don't see what the time period in which people start smoking has anything to do with anything I said?
I never said it would only be damaging if only blown in one's face.
I never said you had to pump 100kgs of tobacco smoke everyday for somebody to suffer ill effects.
I never said that it needed to mix with the rest of the polluted air to be harmful.
I never said it didn't contain carcinogens.
I never said it wasn't bad for you.
Anything else?
The issue with a study that claims that "Of approximately 450,000 smoking-related deaths in the United States annually, as many as 53,000 are attributable to environmental tobacco smoke." is that you can not realistically quantify how much of the toxic/unhealthy/polluted air was from cigarette smoke. These things take decades to come into effect. You would need to quantify how much and of what somebody breathed over that time that slowly deteriorated their health. These things aren't poisons being injected directly into somebody's system, they are things that are slowly deteriorating the health of the person. You would have to have the person check in with you regularly and be checked in order to identify exactly what is doing the damage to them and to what degree. There are a lot of pollutants in the air. It would be very difficult to single out which one is responsible for the damage. It's likely a combination of most of them.
All it really actually says is that environmental tobacco smoke was a contributing factor. I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that singling it out and saying that tobacco smoke is the pollutant completely responsible is virtually impossible to do without constantly testing the person over time, except in some rare cases(somebody exposed to an environment with a significantly higher amount of cigarette smoke than other pollutants. With the recent ban on smoking in public places these are few and far between and even before it were fairly exclusive to people working in environments with lots of smokers indoors). It's unhealthy for you, so is most of the stuff in our air that's been being pumped into it for centuries now.
Funny thing about using the word "attributable", instead of a more direct word, is the word can be used as "contributing factor" as well as "directly caused by". Spinning language is a big thing in the science world. It allows one to be biased while not compromising your professionalism.
Unless you are willing to look at the studies that are being published yourself rather than just taking the public statements of said studies(which are usually not made by the scientists themselves but by whoever is funding the studies or is using the results of the studies to push their agenda) then you really don't have a leg to stand on.
You should also work on actually interpreting my post as a whole rather than just taking small portions of it and exaggerating and twisting them to mean something that they clearly did not. I explained my point well, now I've explained it further. Hopefully this will keep you from grossly misinterpreting things this time around.
FYI, it's not "because I think so" or "because somebody told me so". I spent a lot of time researching this stuff helping a friend with a project a few years ago and spent a lot of time looking at scientific studies and papers and taking them for what they said. There are a number that go either way on the damage that second hand smoke does. No legitimate ones say that they are not harmful. Most are either it's a big killer, it's immeasurable or it's effects are insignificant and the damage is mainly being done by the overall poor state of our air. The 3rd one is actually the most common but the loudest voices are of the people in the 1st. It has the most public interest and gets you more funding. Imagine that. That's what happened when you are governmentally funded.
My entire post wasnt directed towards you. And of course the 100kg statement was a hyperbole, and a very obvious one. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by trying to refute it.
"I think the effects of second hand smoke is exaggerated or worded in ways that it doesn't properly contextualize the effects."
Sure, this will be true for some studies, but the effects of smoking have been studied for decades by professional researchers, and the effects of second hand smoke are neither "exaggerated" nor worded in ways that do not properly contextualize the effects. Surely you dont think all these really smart guys have been, for whatever reason, misleading us?
"Most studies mention a percentage increase in the catching of already fairly rare diseases, numerating it makes it appear to be an almost negligible statistic."
Oh really? CAD is rare? What about strokes? Atherosclerosis? Pulmonary thromboembolism? Lung cancer? Breast cancer? Cervical cancer? Endometrial cancer? Prostatic cancer? COPD? Asthma in kids? PUD? Otitis media? These are the most common disease conditions and cancers in the developed world. And this is only a really, really tiny fraction of the diseases smoking is implicated in. The one statement you'll find most prevalent in medical text is "Smoking is the leading cause of preventable morbidity and mortality in the world". Doesnt seem like a negligible statistic to me.
"A lot of money is wasted on research on second hand smoke. Conclusion: Breathing in low-quality air, or air with unhealthy and/or toxic substances in it is bad for you. Well duh."
No shit. You know why else these researcher people are dumb? Cuz everyone knows eating fat laden foods is bad for someone with coronary artery disease, but they still keep studying it. What morons. All they have to do is give the guy some drugs to keep his lipids low. So why all the research? Because this isnt a casual discussion. You need to prove things before you can accurately implement counter measures. Why is the cut-off for an oral glucose test in diabetes 200? Why isnt it 190? Or 210? All three values are abnormally high, but research gives us a precise answer and equips us to deal with it more effectively.
"Second hand smoke except in some places that have a very high volume of cigarette smoke in the air is very low volume and is no worse for you than the current state of the atmosphere."
If we take the non-tobacco smoke pollutants in the air to be constant, adding second hand tobacco smoke to it, no matter how little, will worsen it. And if theres tobacco smoke in the air you breath, then its an added risk.
Furthermore, saying its "low-volume" means nothing. Different substances need different concentrations to be damaging at, so that is a pointless statement to make.
"There is too many different hazardous pollutants in the air we breathe all around us to determine that sort of thing, even a mildly accurate estimate would be impossible."
Oh really? So that figure I gave you from CMDT, about 53000 deaths annually in the US cuz of second hand smoke, how'd they come up with that? A multitude of studies, all with statistically significant results.
The major chunk of your argument seems to revolve around the fact that since we've already got a ton of pollutants in the air, its impossible to determine within reasonable limits how much of the risk is due to smoking. Even with that logic, though, an agreement seems in place that it IS damaging.
"Any claim that a smoker is increasing the pollution in the air you are breathing by any significant margin is just spewing ignorance."
Oh yeah, you're right, and 10,000,000 studies are wrong. Studies will always give you exact statistical figures, so there isnt a requirement to guess how significant the results are.
"Unless they're blowing it directly into your face it diffuses into the rest of the polluted air you are breathing and becomes a toxic mix of all the other crap you're inhaling."
So the smoke diffuses into the air, then comes back to you. And so people do inhale second hand smoke. Your point? We all know urban air has a lot of shit in it, but this discussion is about the impact of smoking.
"The issue with a study that claims that "Of approximately 450,000 smoking-related deaths in the United States annually, as many as 53,000 are attributable to environmental tobacco smoke." is that you can not realistically quantify how much of the toxic/unhealthy/polluted air was from cigarette smoke. These things take decades to come into effect. You would need to quantify how much and of what somebody breathed over that time that slowly deteriorated their health. These things aren't poisons being injected directly into somebody's system, they are things that are slowly deteriorating the health of the person. You would have to have the person check in with you regularly and be checked in order to identify exactly what is doing the damage to them and to what degree. There are a lot of pollutants in the air. It would be very difficult to single out which one is responsible for the damage. It's likely a combination of most of them"
Look, within statistically significant limits, the direct impact of cigarrette smoke has been quantified in god knows how many studies. The effects of smoking have also been tested under laboratory settings. For example, its known that certain chemicals in smoke are mutagenic for P53, which is the tumor suppressor gene implicated in more cancers than any other. They then test the amount of smoking required to do that, correlate it with population studies, rinse and repeat for decades, and come up with results that'll give you the confidence intervals and blah blah. Its easy for you to say "thats impossible to calculate", but its not. Theres an error of margin, of course, but the more you research it, the smaller it gets.
The 53,000 number, by the way, wasnt one study. Its the average calculated from studies over the last several years.
"All it really actually says is that environmental tobacco smoke was a contributing factor. I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that singling it out and saying that tobacco smoke is the pollutant completely responsible is virtually impossible to do without constantly testing the person over time, except in some rare cases(somebody exposed to an environment with a significantly higher amount of cigarette smoke than other pollutants."
This is a really pointless statement, because no one has ever argued smoking is "completely responsible". ????? You've been imagining things throughout your post.
Just because you've got more than one risk factor "mixed" together doesnt mean you cant dilineate their specific contribution. Myocardial infarction, for example. Tons of risk factors (smoking is one by the way). So we could try your approach, discredit all scientific work, and reject the notion that the contribution of each risk factor can be calculated within significant limits.
"Funny thing about using the word "attributable", instead of a more direct word, is the word can be used as "contributing factor" as well as "directly caused by". Spinning language is a big thing in the science world. It allows one to be biased while not compromising your professionalism."
No? Causal relationships and risk factors are different terms with different meanings. These words might be mixed up in the newspaper, not in medical journals. Try reading one.
"Unless you are willing to look at the studies that are being published yourself rather than just taking the public statements of said studies(which are usually not made by the scientists themselves but by whoever is funding the studies or is using the results of the studies to push their agenda) then you really don't have a leg to stand on."
I'm a med grad. I've been looking at texts and journals for 5+ years now. That paragraph describes your post though. And exactly what is the source of all the statments you've made?
"I spent a lot of time researching this stuff helping a friend with a project a few years ago and spent a lot of time looking at scientific studies and papers and taking them for what they said."[/i]
Let me know the journals you read and their date of publicatin, and I'll go have a look. Meanwhile, you should do some reading too, instead of throwing random, incorrect facts around.
I believe smoking shouldn't be allowed in places that are owned by the government and enclosed areas that are public, but privately owned establishments like restaurants and bars and such should certainly be allowed to decide for themselves. I won't restate the arguments, since they've been repeated so many times and have clearly been more logical than any of the counterarguments.
I'm a smoker and I still think it's good smoking is getting banned from so many places it should also be more expensive Oct 14th I'm quitting, wish me luck
Exactly its private property you assholes... i want people to smoke, you dont want your kid to inhale the smoke? well GET THE FUCK OUT....
If there are sooooo many people worried about it i bet a super duper smart bussiness guy will open a non-smoking restaurant/bar... and it will be crowded (according to your fucking pathetic claims).
But anyway, lets just get facists for the fuck of it... lets legislate bullshit in private property... lets enforce smoking area and non-smoking......
not enough?
Ok lets just go plain nuts nazis now.... lets enforce in the smokers area an air extraction device.
Apparently that isnt enough either.
Do you realize this bullshit its the same crap its being legislated in some states in america abow public indicency?... moms are not allowed to breast feed their kids in public.... not even in fucking privately own bussinesses.
Same fucking argument, hell it sounds stupid to you, but it does disturb my sight, and i am in my RIGHT to not want to see that, or not want my kids to see your fucking tit hanging out, its undecent... if you want to breat feed please go to the bathroom, or your car.
On October 08 2007 22:53 Stygg wrote: I'm a smoker and I still think it's good smoking is getting banned from so many places it should also be more expensive Oct 14th I'm quitting, wish me luck
On October 08 2007 22:53 Stygg wrote: I'm a smoker and I still think it's good smoking is getting banned from so many places it should also be more expensive Oct 14th I'm quitting, wish me luck
On October 08 2007 22:53 Stygg wrote: I'm a smoker and I still think it's good smoking is getting banned from so many places it should also be more expensive Oct 14th I'm quitting, wish me luck
care to elaborate in your stupidity?
it's a small step towards ridding mankind of what is one of the most foul, nasty and completely unnecessary things to have ever been invented. It may be bad for smokers and they (we) will cry omg nazi nazi, but in the long run this has to be good for mankind. People cry at first but then adapt to it as with everything else. If you call that stupidity, I feel sorry for you. Every step counts, make it as "uncool" as possible so kids don't pick it up in next generations
I've been smoking since 15 and have never really found it unbearably disgusting until recently when my hair still smells like cigarettes after showering, I get nauseous being in an environment filled with second hand smoke, and many a times after 5 minutes on the treadmill I feel like I'm about to die. Cigarettes are the some of the grossest things you can put into your body but I have never quit for good though even 3-4 years into smoking a pack a day I still sometimes stop completely for 2-3 weeks out of will just cuz it's so nasty. My advice to those who want to quit, watch "The Insider". Fuck nicotine patches those are made to take more of your money.
I don't agree that the dangers of second hand smoking warrant the bans in practice, but I do think they save lives so even though I think it's extremely annoying to not be able to smoke in very common places, I don't mind it that much since it means less cigarettes will be smoked.
On October 08 2007 22:53 Stygg wrote: I'm a smoker and I still think it's good smoking is getting banned from so many places it should also be more expensive Oct 14th I'm quitting, wish me luck
care to elaborate in your stupidity?
it's a small step towards ridding mankind of what is one of the most foul, nasty and completely unnecessary things to have ever been invented. It may be bad for smokers and they (we) will cry omg nazi nazi, but in the long run this has to be good for mankind. People cry at first but then adapt to it as with everything else. If you call that stupidity, I feel sorry for you. Every step counts, make it as "uncool" as possible so kids don't pick it up in next generations
On October 08 2007 22:53 Stygg wrote: I'm a smoker and I still think it's good smoking is getting banned from so many places it should also be more expensive Oct 14th I'm quitting, wish me luck
Good luck! I quit almost two years ago now, and it was surprisingly easy. Then I picked up snus like a year ago, and quit 2 months ago, that was a lot harder
I quit cold turkey on both occations, btw. Not that hard.
On October 08 2007 23:01 baal wrote: Do you realize this bullshit its the same crap its being legislated in some states in america abow public indicency?... moms are not allowed to breast feed their kids in public.... not even in fucking privately own bussinesses.
Same fucking argument, hell it sounds stupid to you, but it does disturb my sight, and i am in my RIGHT to not want to see that, or not want my kids to see your fucking tit hanging out, its undecent... if you want to breat feed please go to the bathroom, or your car.
Gandalf: If you honestly believe that nobody is saying that smoking is completely responsible for destroying their health...I don't even know what to say. People do it constantly. The anti-smoking lobbyists do it constantly. I've seen people start yelling at a smoker for "destroying our air" and "killing other people". You see it in this thread, people think that a smoker is actively destroying their health rather than it being a combination of factors.
I guess you got me.
Except you didn't really prove my main point wrong. My point has very little to do with the effects of smoking but with the amount of environmental tobacco smoke there is outdoors and if it is in concentration high enough to be considered significantly damaging, especially to the degree people are lead to believe it is. Since there is a huge lacking of data in air monitoring and the levels of OTS, I would say you can't really disprove anything I've said until more research is done.
In fact, there are almost no published studies on systematic measurement of human exposure to outdoor tobacco smoke. But I mean, that can quantify it anyway, without that kind of data, right? My bad. You got me. I mean with the first published study on the topic being in May 2007, who am I to argue? I mean, knowing the levels of outdoor tobacco smoke is so unimportant to being able to determine the significance of second hand smoke with the recent bans of smoking in indoor public places, right? They don't need that kind of information to quantify how much damage is or is not being done, do they? Who really needs to know how much tobacco smoke is or is not being breathed in? What does how much of it you're breathing in have to do with anything anyway? Who was I to argue such a silly thing?
That and the studies that have been published say that while levels around the source and downwind of the source are similar to those indoors during periods of active smoking, they go back to normal almost directly after smoking ceases except in certain very low wind conditions. They also say that those that are upwind from the smoker have a negligible amount of tobacco smoke in the air. In fact, unless you spend a very large amount of time in close proximity of a smoker, you will never breath in a significant amount of tobacco smoke. The wind circulates it all so it doesn't have enough time to settle and concentrate to the point of being dangerous.
The fact that second hand smoke studies to date could not and have not take this kind of information into account does mean that a lot of money was wasted on it, especially since banning smoking indoors. That is why they are either exaggerated or not properly contextualized. They haven't been misleading us. They get research that tells us that certain effects occur in certain conditions. Those conditions aren't present outdoors, nor are they present indoors unless there are people smoking regularly. Unless they can prove these conditions are present, which they did with levels of indoor tobacco smoke, it is wasted money as well as an exaggeration of the real world effects of second hand smoke. Things are only dangerous if the conditions that make the dangerous are present.[NOTE: The levels of OTS are still dangerous for high risk persons but other than a complete ban of smoking, this can't be helped. And unfortunately it would be impossible to prohibit smoking at this point.]
You can spout off all the medical stuff you want about smoking. Some of the stuff I've said about the effects of smoking may be inaccurate or wrong, but that isn't the primary point I'm disputing. Your claims of there being many studies in the area that I am talking about are wildly incorrect. But congratulations on completely missing my point.
Funnily enough, the lacking of information regarding the dangers of second hand smoke has been blatantly obvious to me for years. I'm amazed that studies on the levels of outdoor tobacco smoke are only being seriously pursued in the last year.
Can't say I'm surprised that the med student was oblivious to it though. There may be other factors to the level of danger(or lack of) than simply what effect they have on the human body. Oh. Em. Gee.
I guess I should start seriously considering the dangers of everything that's potentially harmful in my every day life. Who cares if the conditions for them being so aren't present.
On October 09 2007 03:16 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: Gandalf: If you honestly believe that nobody is saying that smoking is completely responsible for destroying their health...I don't even know what to say. People do it constantly. The anti-smoking lobbyists do it constantly. I've seen people start yelling at a smoker for "destroying our air" and "killing other people". You see it in this thread, people think that a smoker is actively destroying their health rather than it being a combination of factors.
I guess you got me.
Except you didn't really prove my main point wrong. My point has very little to do with the effects of smoking but with the amount of environmental tobacco smoke there is outdoors and if it is in concentration high enough to be considered significantly damaging, especially to the degree people are lead to believe it is. Since there is a huge lacking of data in air monitoring and the levels of OTS, I would say you can't really disprove anything I've said until more research is done.
In fact, there are almost no published studies on systematic measurement of human exposure to outdoor tobacco smoke. But I mean, that can quantify it anyway, without that kind of data, right? My bad. You got me. I mean with the first published study on the topic being in May 2007, who am I to argue? I mean, knowing the levels of outdoor tobacco smoke is so unimportant to being able to determine the significance of second hand smoke with the recent bans of smoking in indoor public places, right? They don't need that kind of information to quantify how much damage is or is not being done, do they? Who really needs to know how much tobacco smoke is or is not being breathed in? What does how much of it you're breathing in have to do with anything anyway? Who was I to argue such a silly thing?
That and the studies that have been published say that while levels around the source and downwind of the source are similar to those indoors during periods of active smoking, they go back to normal almost directly after smoking ceases except in certain very low wind conditions. They also say that those that are upwind from the smoker have a negligible amount of tobacco smoke in the air. In fact, unless you spend a very large amount of time in close proximity of a smoker, you will never breath in a significant amount of tobacco smoke. The wind circulates it all so it doesn't have enough time to settle and concentrate to the point of being dangerous.
The fact that second hand smoke studies to date could not and have not take this kind of information into account does mean that a lot of money was wasted on it, especially since banning smoking indoors. That is why they are either exaggerated or not properly contextualized. They haven't been misleading us. They get research that tells us that certain effects occur in certain conditions. Those conditions aren't present outdoors, nor are they present indoors unless there are people smoking regularly. Unless they can prove these conditions are present, which they did with levels of indoor tobacco smoke, it is wasted money as well as an exaggeration of the real world effects of second hand smoke. Things are only dangerous if the conditions that make the dangerous are present.[NOTE: The levels of OTS are still dangerous for high risk persons but other than a complete ban of smoking, this can't be helped. And unfortunately it would be impossible to prohibit smoking at this point.]
You can spout off all the medical stuff you want about smoking. Some of the stuff I've said about the effects of smoking may be inaccurate or wrong, but that isn't the primary point I'm disputing. Your claims of there being many studies in the area that I am talking about are wildly incorrect. But congratulations on completely missing my point.
I'm not American, I've only been there a few times, I have no idea what the politicians or the lobbyists etc say, nor do I know the financial or economic implications of banning smoking or taxing it more or something.
My discussion is solely about the ill effects of smoking. I never contended smoking is completely responsible for the ailments its listed as a causal or risk factor for. Thats an incredibly stupid statement to make. If people do it constantly, they need to be educated. So do the people who say smoking isnt a risk factor for anything and that its just propaganda. If both sides are willing to engage in reasonable debate, they'll both be enlightened.
I think you probably skimmed through my post, because I never said this. If you know people who do, or if people in this thread have, respond to them.
Again, you've missed my point completely. Environmental tobacco smoke, or ETS, or passive smoke, does NOT mean outdoor smoke. If you're in a bar with 20 people smoking in there and you're inhaling it, its ETS. Didnt that occur to you when I quoted a figure from reputed medical text? The outdoors is actually the least damaging place to smoke, since the greater volume of air to diffuse into will obviously dilute the chemicals. But the fact is that people get exposed to smoke in restaraunts, bars, etc and other closed spaces. You know whats worse? Parents who smoke at home. They think they can let the kids into the lounge or room or w/e and the smoke will be gone by then. A lot dont even care to do that. I know, they're idiots. But the rules arent being made solely to appease the fraction of smokers who actually ARE careful about when and where they smoke.
Again, CMDT puts the number of annual deaths due to second hand smoke at 53,000 in the US. This is a figure derived from several studies over several years. Again, dont confuse second hand smoke with outdoor smoke. I thought this distinction would be remarkably clear to anyone, guess it wasnt. And just to make it clear, ETS isnt outdoor smoke either. Thats second hand smoke too, no matter where you're exposed to it.
Your last two posts have failed to answer a lot of issues I've raised. You come up with mostly unfounded and opinionated information, then completely ignore my counter argument to it.
I dont have a problem with smokers personally, as long as they're courteous about not bothering others. What troubles me is that every single smoker I've ever known is HUGELY uninformed about its implications. I mean, when we buy a computer, we do a little research. When we buy a house, we hire a professional to help us out. Yet most smokers start around high school, without any information about it whatsoever. And no, this point isnt directed at you, so dont start fighting about it.
If you do respond to this post, I hope you dont do it just to win the argument or something. I've mentioned a lot of stuff in my last two posts that you've completely ignored, then said a few things based on a misunderstanding on your part, and tried to undermine my points.
Also bear in mind that I have no stance on where or when smoking should be banned. I'm simply debating the medical consequences, of both first hand as well as second hand smoke. Again, not outdoor smoke, just so we're clear.
I hope your next reply doesnt completely ignore my entire post, come up with something new, and congratulate me on missing the entire point.
You've constantly argued about there being a certain "level" of second hand smoke being dangerous. Right? What if I were to say:
"There is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure. Even brief exposure can be dangerous."
Would you buy it? Of course not. You'd tell me there was no way to accurately measure smoke exposure, or that blah blah blah. You'll find an article with all its references here:
The real beauty of this page is that it clarifies outdoor smoke is not tantamount to second hand smoke. I really wouldnt want this point to be raised again.
Ouch that next post really got me. Guess all the guys at CDC are morons too. Some random guy with no experience in any medical field obviously knows enough to discredit countless studies just like that. Lol.
Make sure you read the part about cotinine, since you've been arguing theres no way to measure exposure to tobacco smoke without living 24/7 with the people or something, which probably isnt very accurate either cuz they could sneak one when they're in the toilet.
I'll reply if you bring up an interesting point. If you continue this debate as if it were an ego-war, I'll just let you have the last word.
"I think you probably skimmed through my post, because I never said this. If you know people who do, or if people in this thread have, respond to them."
I never said you said this. I said if you honestly believe that there aren't people saying this you should open your ears.
On October 09 2007 03:56 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: Yep, because I said that the upper levels of the medical world were complete morons. That was my implications. For sure.
Dot Dot Dot...
Again, you respond to nothing I said.
When you discredit decades of work carried out by doctors from all over the world based solely on your opinion, then you're calling them a lot more than complete morons. Just implicitly.
I wouldve liked this debate a lot more if you'd been a little open minded about it. Oh well.
On October 09 2007 03:58 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: "I think you probably skimmed through my post, because I never said this. If you know people who do, or if people in this thread have, respond to them."
I never said you said this. I said if you honestly believe that there aren't people saying this you should open your ears.
I do know a large number of people say this. I also know a large number of people say the exact opposite. This is a point I already mentioned in an earlier post. I think both groups are misinformed, and both need to be educated. But people get educated only when they're willing to be, and when they're reasonable enough to concede the other party might be right at least on some fronts.
My argument isn't that second hand smoke isn't bad. The ban on smoking indoors in public places is a good thing. I think it's bad that it is enforced on privately owned businesses as it infringes on reasonable personal freedoms but that is another argument entirely.
It's that with the current ban on smoking indoors the danger for most people(those of us not hanging around smoke filled houses) is fairly minute. A great number of people are under the impression that a smoker is negatively effecting their health in a big way and it simply is not the case because of the nature of outdoor circulation of air. I'm trying to say that that isn't really the case. Treating people who smoke rudely based on an incorrect understanding of the dangers of second hand smoke is silly. People should not be treated poorly just because people are misinformed.
Parents with children should not smoke near them under any circumstances. Exposure to tobacco smoke outdoors is equal to and in some circumstances even higher than indoors. Not really as bad as a house filled with smoke but bad nonetheless.
In fact, if you smoke outdoors near people you should make an effort to not have them downwind.
are my post fucking transparent or something... i still havent seen anyone refute what i said about separate zones + air extraction systems... what do you fucking see wrong with that you morons?
Its a shame ive never been yelled at for smoking, mexico is not that nazi yet, but i do hope someday somebody will so i can then proceed to blow my smoke on his face.
PS: seeing a female tit is unhealthy for a children minds and i dont want my kids to see that, you are infringing my civil liberties by exposing your private parts to my underaged kids ffs!
(i obviously dont belive that its just the same position about "you are infringing my rights" fanatism banning others liberties for my dumb tantrums)
god i hate the smell of 2nd hand smoke, worst smell in the world, fuck smokers and go california lawmakers. everytime I see some goth retard smoking a cigarette I realize why this world is going to hell
On October 09 2007 04:15 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: My argument isn't that second hand smoke isn't bad. The ban on smoking indoors in public places is a good thing. I think it's bad that it is enforced on privately owned businesses as it infringes on reasonable personal freedoms but that is another argument entirely.
It's that with the current ban on smoking indoors the danger for most people(those of us not hanging around smoke filled houses) is fairly minute. A great number of people are under the impression that a smoker is negatively effecting their health in a big way and it simply is not the case because of the nature of outdoor circulation of air. I'm trying to say that that isn't really the case. Treating people who smoke rudely based on an incorrect understanding of the dangers of second hand smoke is silly. People should not be treated poorly just because people are misinformed.
I think people who get in the way of someone else's smoking in a condescending way needs to just get punched in the face.... Not sure what value that added to this thread, but I felt the need to get that out there.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/6852/50606281kp9.png)
I mean DNA-molecules of course. I'll fill in later, not time now.
